Consensus or Consent?

At the last Victorian Pastors' Conference, it was announced that the CTICR would try to resolve the debate on the ordination of women and avoid a division in the LCA by seeking a consensus. No doubt this use of the word "consensus" owes something to the political use of the term, especially by Bob Hawke. So, for example, the former prime minister received much publicity when he called a meeting of the leaders of management and labour then brokered a consensus; both parties moved from their hard positions and eventually found agreement in the middle. In brief, a consensus is a compromise.

It now appears that this approach will be tried in the LCA on the ordination of women in order to avoid a split in the church. However, can doctrine be decided by consensus, that is, in the sense that is described above? This is by no means a new question, for it was the chief point at issue in the controversies of the Lutheran Church of the sixteenth century, and it was finally resolved in the Formula of Concord.

A short statement on the history of the Formula will help explain how the theologians of that time drew up the methodology for determining the proper definition of doctrine. For thirty years after Luther's death, the Lutheran churches were divided by doctrinal controversies. One group of theologians   (also the Lutheran princes) sought to overcome these differences and the division that they caused in the church by following a political solution - peace through compromise. This, however, was firmly rejected by the theologians led by Flacius as "indifferentism". It gradually became recognised that unity with peace could only be established on the basis of clear, unequivocal agreement in doctrine. Three theologians came to the fore determined to permit no compromise: Andreae, Chemnitz and Selnecker. In 1577, the Formula of Concord, together with a shortened version called the Epitome, was signed by six theologians. This statement finally settled 12 major doctrinal issues and saved the Lutheran churches from division.

The principles they used are described in the introductory statement called Rule and Norm. Of first importance, all doctrine is defined on the clear.authority of Scripture as the absolute norm, and also in keeping with the already existing Lutheran Confessions (Augsburg Confession, Apology, Catechisms, etc.) as a secondary norm.  Their confession of these doctrines is done in the presence of God and of all Christendom. They are prepared to bring their teaching before the judgement seat of Jesus Christ.

As to actual procedure, they state the following. The precise point at issue and the appropriate terms must be clearly defined. The clear passages of Scripture (sedes doctrinae) must be applied. The teachings must be consonant with the Lutheran Confessions. Finally, the antitheses (errors) must be clearly stated and rejected, without, however, attacking the persons involved.

This methodology produced a document of precision. Today, when "peace" is.sought through ecumenical constitutions and statements that use ambiguity and concealment as their chief means, the Formula of Concord stands out as an example of honesty and integrity. For this reason, when the two Lutheran churches in Australia sought to bring about a God-pleasing union, they turned to the Formula as their example for procedure, and followed the points mentioned above.

This now raises the question as to how closely we are prepared in the present debate on the ordination of women to follow the methodology of the Rule and Norm. Much could be said both on the score of following clear.passages of Scripture and on faithfulness to the Confessions. However, it is the last point, the rejection of error that demands our immediate attention. The writers of the Theses of Agreement (TA) were resolute in following the Formula on this matter. .In the fifth thesis they state the affirmativa and the negativa on the doctrine of the Church. In the opening thesis they state: "... such difference (of doctrine) must be pointed out as an error , on the basis of clear passages of Holy Writ; and if the error is persisted in... it must  lead to separation." Or again : (unionism is)"failure to reject and denounce every opposing error" (II,2,b). See also IX,2,c: "...we reject error and heresy...and thereby fight the devil who tries to destroy the Gospel." Et passim. (I.e. in many other passages)

Clearly, therefore, to be true to Scripture and the Confessions, it is necessary  in the present  controversy of the ordination of women to state what the true teaching is, and then also to name the error and firmly reject it. There can be no possible case for consensus, that is, a middle position that seeks to maintain unity through compromise. On the contrary, unity.follows truth, and "if error is persisted in, it must lead to separation" (TA I,4,a).

There remains one further comment on consensus. The Book of Concord does use the Latin word "consensus". So, in CA I we read: "Our churches teach with great unanimity (magno consensu)." In the German:"We unanimously (eintraechtiglich) hold and teach ". What is meant has been explained in TA IX,2,b: "...the common consent  (magnus consensus)...not only with the believers of today....but also with the true Church of all ages from the time of the apostles and the ancient creeds to the end of the world..." There is absolutely no suggestion here of consensus in the sense of an agreement based on a middle position in order to stave off division. Indeed, it means just the contrary.

To sum up, there is no possibility of reaching consensus on the ordination of women as proposed by the leadership of our church. To be consistent with the teaching of the Confessions, the Scriptural doctrine must be clearly defined in the affirmative, and then the false doctrine clearly explained as the negative. Finally, the negative must be rejected, "...so that well-meaning Christians who are really concerned about the truth may know how to guard and protect themselves against the errors and corruptions that have invaded our midst " (Rule and Norm, 10).

Peter Koehne

1998